JUDGMENT
Das, J.
1. This was an action by the appellant for declaration of her title to, and for recovery of possession of, approximately 436 bighas of land as appertaining to her mouzah Khutia. The suit was resisted by the defendants substantially on the ground that the land in dispute appertained not to the plaintiff’s mouzoh Khutia, but to their mouzah Tikarampore. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the river Boor Gandak was the boundary between the two estates in 1856-66 and continued to be so until the lands were completely washed away in 1308 and 1309. Relying upon the report and the map prepared by a Pleader Commissioner, he has some to the conclusion that the bulk of the disputed land is situated south of the southern line of Boor Gandak as it existed from 1865-66 to 1900-01 and that it accordingly falls within mouzah Tikarampore. In that view, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff’s claim to the bulk of the property claimed.
2. The plaintiff relies upon the Revenue Survey Map of 1832 and on the Cadastral Survey Map of 1903. The defendants, on the contrary, rely upon the Gangetic Survey Map of 1895-6. The Pleader Commissioner has shown that, according to the Revenue Survey Map and the Cadastral Survey Map, the bulk of the disputed land lies within the plaintiff’s mouzah, but that, according to the Gangetic Survey Map, the bulk of the disputed land lies within the defendants’ mouzah. Mr. Wasi Ahmed, who has argued the case on behalf of the plaintiff with conspicuous fairness and ability, has put forward the following propositions before us; first, that the Revenue Survey Map must prevail over the Gangetic Survey Map, secondly, that the Gangetic Survey Map cannot be relied upon on the question of boundaries between different mouzahs; thirdly, that as there is a conflict between the two maps, the Cadastral Survey Map ought to be regarded as conclusive on the question, and, lastly, that, assuming that the Gangetic Survey Map is regarded as authentic on the question of boundaries, the Pleader Commissioner has not correctly shown the disputed land with reference to the mouzahs in question. Mr. Sushil Madhab Mullick, on behalf of the respondents, has argued first, that the map relied upon by the appellant as the Revenue Survey Map is not a Revenue Survey Map and has been found to be unreliable and ought not, to be regarded by us; secondly, that, assuming it is reliable, all that it does show is that the plaintiff was in possession of the bulk of the disputed land in 1838 and not later than 1838; thirdly, that the Gangetic Survey Map was in substance a Revenue Survey Map and must be regarded as establishing that mouzah Tikarampore was bounded on the north by Boor Gandak; fourthly, that there is no real conflict between the Revenue Survey Map and the Gangetic Survey Map for, on the assumption that both are reliable, it is possible to hold that, between 1838 and 1865 the position has changed to the detriment of mouzah Kutia; fifthly, that, assuming that the Gangetic Survey Map correctly shows the position of Tikarampore as bounded on the north by Boor Gandak, it must be held, on the evidence of both sides, that the same position continued unchanged up to the diluvion in 1900-01 so as to confer a good and indefeasible title on the defendants by long possession, and, lastly, that the Cadastral Survey Map, in the circumstances of the case with which I shall have to deal, is not a reliable map, and even if it be reliable, it cannot operate so as to defeat the title of the respondents acquired by long possession from 1865 down to the date of the diluvion, especially as the plaintiff was ousted before she had time to acquire a title by adverse possession after the lands re-appeared and became fit for cultivation. On the question of the identification of the disputed land, Mr. Mullick relied on the report and the map of the Pleader Commissioner.
3. It will be necessary then to consider the reliability of each of the maps that has been put forward in this case, The plaintiff relies upon the Revenue Survey Map of 1838, and it is admitted that, according to that map, the bulk of the disputed land falls within the plaintiff’s mouzah. It is of course a question of fast, in each case, whether lands were included in the Permanent Settlement, but, as the Judicial Committee has pointed out, ‘Maps and Surveys in India for revenue purposes are official documents prepared by competent persons and with such publicity and notice to persons interested as to be admissible as valuable evidence of the state of things at the time they are made,” Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Secretary of State 30 C 291 (P.C.) : 30 I.A. 44 : 7 C.W.N. 198 5 Bom. L.B. 1. Therefore, unless this map is shown to be wrong, it may, to adopt the words of the Judicial Committee in the same case, “be properly judicially received in evidence as correct, when made.”
3. The respondents rely upon Exhibit A, a letter from the Deputy Surveyor General to the Collector of Monghyr, dated the 21st January 1859. In order to appreciate the importance of this letter it is necessary to remember that the Survey of 1838 was conducted by Lt. Egerton and embraced the whole of Parganna Pharkia, which in 1838 included not only the plaintiff’s mouzah Kutia, but also mouzah Phulwaria, which is now known as Tikarampore. Tikarampore is now included within Parganna Monghyr, but in 1838 it formed part of Parganna Pharkia and was surveyed as such by Lt. Egerton. That survey was determined upon in order to demarcate certain tracts of waste land outside the ambit of the settled and cultivated villages to which, it was hold, that the Permanent Settlement did not extend (District Qazeteer Monghyr, page 158). Although, therefore, for the special purpose for which the survey was determined upon, it was not necessary for Lt. Egerton to show the internal matters within each village, it was imperatively necessary for him to show the exterior boundaries of each village. In his letter of the 21st January 1859, the Deputy Surveyor General complained that many intervening jheels and rivers were not taken note of by Lt. Egerton, and he suggested that an entirely new survey should be made of this Parganna. It may be conceded that this survey had neither the accuracy nor the completeness of the subsequent Revenue Survey, but I do not think that it has ever been pointed out that, so far as the demarcation of the boundaries of the villages is concerned, it was in any way inaccurate and unreliable. That survey was confessedly confined to boundaries of villages and, so far as boundaries of villages are concerned, it has never been suggested that Lt. Edgerton’s survey failed to accomplish its object. There was a survey of the rest of the District by Captain Sherwill in 1845-47, but Pargannah Pharkiya was excluded from its operation, and, as we read in the District Gazeteer, the survey of Parganna Pharkiya was formally given the dignify of a Revenue Survey. In my judgment, the decision of the Revenue Authorities, not to carry out another Revenue Survey of Parganna Pharkiya, but to confer on the work of Lt. Egerton the title of Revenue Survey must be regarded as establishing the accuracy and correctness of the maps prepared by Lt. Egerton on the question of boundaries of villages. It must follow, therefore, that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff was in possession of the bulk of the disputed land in 1838.
4. Before discussing the Gangetic Survey Map of 1865, it will be convenient to deal with the Cadastral Survey of 1900-03. It is conceded that the result of the Cadastral Survey of 1900-03 is unfavourable to the defendants; but, it is argued, that neither the final entry in the Record of Rights recording the disputed land as in the possession of the plaintiff nor the Cadastral Survey Map showing the disputed land as part of the plaintiff’s mouzah is admissible in evidence, inasmuch as the Bengal Tenancy Act deals with the relation of landlords and tenants, and not with disputes between rival proprietors. Such an argument overlooks the point that the first stage in the preparation of the Record of Rights is the Cadastral Survey and demarcation of boundaries, so that there may be no difficulty about the identification of lands. I may usefully refer to the unambiguous words employed in Section 101(1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act giving power to the Local Government to direct “that a survey be made and a Record of Rights be prepared, by a Revenue Officer, in respect of the lands in any local area…. ” A survey is, in my view, an indispensable necessity for the preparation of the Record of Rights, and I am by no means prepared to admit that the proprietor of one estate has nothing whatever to do with the preparation of the Record of Rights of another estate belonging to a neighbouring proprietor, since the preliminary survey must determine the boundary between the two estates. It is only when the exterior boundaries of the villages are ascertained that the preparation of the Record of Rights can be commenced, and, in my view, the rival proprietors incur a grave risk in not putting forward their evidence of possession at the time of the demarcation of the boundaries.
5. The result of the Cadastral Survey of 1901-03 can be looked at from two points of view; first, as bearing on the survey, and secondly, as bearing on the preparation of the Record of Rights. But from whichever point of view the matter is looked at, the result is equally favourable to the plaintiff. 1 will take the question of the Record of Rights first. Section 106 of the Act, in my view, makes it quite clear that an entry in the Record of Rights arresting the proprietor of a neighbouring estate is admissible in evidence against him and must be presumed to be correct until the contrary is shown. This section gives a remedy for the correction of an entry after the final publication of the Record of Rights and provides that a suit may be instituted before a Revenue Officer at any time within three months from the date of the certificate of the final publication of the Record of Rights for the decision of any dispute regarding any entry which a Revenue Officer has made in, or any omission which the said officer has made from, the record, whether such dispute be between landlord and tenant, or between landlords of the same or of neighbouring estates, or between tenant and tenant. I san hardly imagine the Legislature solemnly giving a right to the landlord of estate A. to bring a suit before the Revenue Officer against the landlord of estate B. regarding any entry made or omitted to be made in any record, unless the entry was intended to have some effect against the landlord of estate A., under the law. In my view, an entry in the Record of Rights operates in the same way between landlords of neighbouring estates as between landlord and tenant, or between landlords of the same estate or between tenant and tenant Such an entry must accordingly be presumed to be correct until it is shown by evidence to be incorrect.
6. When we look at the operation from the point of view of the actual survey made, the result is equally favourable to the plaintiff. Demarcation of boundaries and identification of lands constitute the first stage in a Cadastral Survey. Section 189 of the Act gives power to the Local Government to make rules, consistent with the Act, to regulate the procedure to be followed by Revenue Officers in the discharge of any duty imposed upon them by or under the Act, and by such rules, to confer upon any such officer, power to enter upon any land, and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same, and any power exercisable by any officer under the Bengal Survey Act, 1875. It will be seen on a reference to the rules as they existed in 1900 that the Local Government conferred on the Revenue Officers all the powers mentioned in Section 189 of the Act. They had, therefore, all the powers exercisable by any officer under the Bengal Survey Act, 1875, and had express power to enter upon any land, and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same. In my view, the procedure for a survey, though directed to be made under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, must be that laid down in the Bengal Survey Act and it must be conducted with all the publicity and notice to all the parties concerned as laid down in that Act. It is, therefore, necessary to turn to the Bengal Tenancy Act to see what are the acts required to be done before a survey can be effected. Under Section 5, the Gollestor, before entering on the lands, is required to publish a proclamation addressed to the occupants of the lands which are about to be surveyed and of the conterminous lands, and to all persons employed on or connected with the management of, or otherwise interested in, such lands calling upon them to attend during the demarcation and survey of the land, for the purpose of pointing out the boundaries. Under Section 6, the Gollestor may enter upon the land after the issue of the proclamation, and do all things and make all inquiries necessary for effecting the survey and demarcation of the boundaries thereof After the actual survey and on receipt in the Collector’s office of the maps or papers showing any boundaries which, have been demarcated, the Collector has, under Section 12, to post notification informing all persons concerned that the maps and papers relating to the boundaries in the village or tract specified are open to inspection, and requiring any person who may have any objection to prefer, to prefer such objection within a specified time. It is obvious that very great care is taken to correctly demarcate the boundaries as between different villages, audit is not lightly that we ought to set aside the work done with such publicity and notice to persons interested.
7. As regards the procedure for demarcation, the rules framed under Section 189, Bengal Tenancy Act, as they existed at the time of the survey, provided as follows:
4(a). In the demarcation of village boundaries the area contained within the exterior boundaries of the village maps of the Revenue Survey shall be preserved as far as possible as the unit of survey and record.
(6). Where there is no dispute the boundary of the village according to possession shall be followed, and, where that boundary does not differ substantially from the boundary of the Revenue Survey, the latter will not be separately shown in the map.
(c). Where there is considerable difference between the boundary according to the Revenue Survey Map and the existing boundary of the village as ascertained by the Revenue Officer, the latter shall be followed for the purposes of map and record; but the boundary of the Revenue Survey Map shall also be marked on the new village map.
(d), Where there is dispute as to village boundaries, the Revenue Officer shall decide the dispute under the Bengal Tenancy Act.
8. In this case there was no dispute before the survey authorities as to the boundary between the two villages with which we are concerned. We are accordingly entitled to presume that boundary according to possession was followed, and, as that boundary did not differ from the boundary of the Revenue Survey, as the Commissioner in this case has shown, the latter was not separately shown in the map. In my view, great weight must attach to the Cadastral Survey map, not only because the work in connection with the map was done with due publicity and fall notice to the persons interested, but also because that map has received strong support and corroboration from the Revenue Survy Map.
9. It was argued, however, by Mr. Sushil Madhab Mullick that no importance ought to be attached to the Cadastral Survey Map as the disputed land was admittedly under water at the time of the Cadastral Survey. The Cadastral Survey Map shows that Plot No. 1286 was then under water, but that the plot to the south of Plot No. 1286, namely, Plot No. 1287, as well as the plots to the north and east of Plot No. 1286 were dry lands when the map was prepared. Now the important plot is undoubtedly Plot No. 1287 which lies to the north of Tikarampore as shown in the Cadastral Survey Map.
10. If the defendants’ case is true, namely, that they were in possession of the disputed land at the time of the diluvion, they would undoubtedly have claimed Plot No. 1287 as appertaining to their mouzah Tikarampore, and, if they had done so, some argument might have been founded on the undoubted fact that Plot No. 286 was then under water and was difficult of identification. But, so far as Plot No. 1287 is concerned, there was no difficulty in identifying it as part of Tikarampore. Their failure to do so suggests an inference that they were not in possession of it as part of Tikarampore. If they thought that Plot No. 1287 was part of Kutia, they must have thought that Plot No. 1286, which was north of Plot No. 1287, and, therefore, further away from Tikarampore was part of Kutia.
11. I am, therefore, not inclined to attach much weight to the fact that a portion of the disputed land was undoubtedly under water at the time of the survey operations. I do not for a moment believe that landlords do not keep careful note of the fact that there land has gone under water. In the course of survey operations, survey authorities have frequently to consider questions of possession in connection with land covered with water; and if, as is suggested, it is impossible for a landlord to identify land covered with water as his, the law, 1 apprehend, would have imposed a restriction on the power of the survey authorities to survey such land. In any event, the northern, the southern and the eastern portions of the disputed land were all dry land at the time of the survey. If the survey authorities were justified in showing these portions as appertaining to Kutia, they were equally justified in showing Plot No. 1286 as part of Kutia. In my judgment, the Cadastral Survey Map is important evidence in plaintiff’s favour and ought not to be ignored.
12. The effect of accepting the Cadastral Survey Map is that the plaintiff shows that she was in possession of the disputed land not only in 1838, but also in 1903. In considering the reliability of the Gangetic Survey Map, we are bound to take into consideration the fact that the plaintiff has shown that she was in possession of the disputed land at two different points of time. It may be that the Court will not assume that the state of things existing in 1838 continued till 1865, but, as Lord Lindley once suggested, no Court can properly act on the assumption that in 1865 a state of things existed different from that in 1903. It must, I think, be assumed, until the contrary is shown, that the plaintiff continued to be in possession on between 1838 and 1903 and was in fact in possession in 1865.
13. And this brings me to the Gangetic Survey Map on which the defendants strongly rely. They say that it does not matter very much whether the plaintiff was in possession in 1838. According to them, the Gangetic Survey Map shows that the disputed land appertains to their mauzah, and, connecting that map with the oral evidence in” the case, they argue that they have been in possession of the land in dispute from 1865 up to the diluvion. Their next branch of the argument is that, if they have satisfied the Court that the disputed land was demarcated as part of their mauzah in 1865 and that they have been in possession of the disputed land from 1865 up to the diluvion, the Cadastral Survey Map must be wrong. They then argue that, even if the Cadastral Survey Map be correct as showing the state of things in 1903, all that would follow from it would be that they were dispossessed by the plaintiff in 1903, and would have been entitled, in a properly constituted action, to recover possession of the property from the plaintiff, a course which was rendered unnecessary by the fact that they recovered possession of the disputed property from the plaintiff.
14. It will be noticed that the success of the argument wholly depends on whether we can accept the Gangetic Survey Map as correctly showing the state of things in 1865. If we can, and if the Pleader Commissioner has rightly identified the disputed land as falling within the defendants’ mauzah, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the defendants must succeed.
15. It is necessary, therefore, to consider the scope of the Act under which the Gangetic Survey Map was prepared. That Act is called the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (Act IX of 1847). To quote the words of the full title, it was “an Act regarding the assessment of lands gained from the Bea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction within the Provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa”. These words, to my mind, clearly indicate the scope of the Act. It was not an Act regarding the assessment of lands generally, but an Act regarding the assessment of lands “gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction”. The Act had no operation where, by change of possession, lands forming part of one estate became annexed to another estate. There would be no question of a fresh assessment in such a case, and the Act would have no application to push a case.
16. The first Section runs as follows: “It is hereby enacted that such parts of the Regulations of the Bengal Code as establish tribunals and prescribe rules of procedure for investigations regarding the liability to assessment of lands gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction, or regarding the right of Government to the ownership thereof, shall, from the date of the passing of this Act, cease to have effect within the Provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa…and that no measures shall hereafter be’ taken for the assessment of such lands, or for the assertion of the right of Government to the ownership thereof except under the provisions of this Act”. Wilson, J, in his elaborate judgment in Fahamidannissa Begum v. Secretary of State 14C. 67 (F.B.) : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 46, has shown that prior to the passing of this Act, there existed a set of complicated rules distributed in various regulations for the determination of two questions, first, the question of the liability of lands gained by alluvion or dereliction to assessment, and, secondly, the question of the actual assessment. In his view, a view which was upheld by the Judicial Committee in the same case, see Secretary of State v. Fahamidannissa Begum 17 C. 590 (P.C.) : 17 I.A. 40 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 391 : 8 Iad. Dec. (N.S.) 933, Section 1 of the Act repealed such parts of the Regulations as prescribed rules of procedure for investigation regarding the liability to assessment with a view to provide a convenient and a simple procedure for the determination of such liability. The new procedure provided by the Act is laid down in Sections 3, 5 and 6. Section 3 runs as follows: “Within the said Provinces it shall be lawful for the Government of Bengal, in all districts or parts of districts of which a Revenue Survey may have been or may hereafter be completed and approved by Government, to direct from time to time, whenever ten years from the approval of any such survey shall have expired, a new survey of lands on the banks of rivers and on the shores of the sea, in order to ascertain the changes that may have taken place since the date of the last previous survey, and to cause new maps to be made according to such new survey”. It is this section under which the Gangetic Survey Map was prepared. Now, it seems to me that there are two things which are perfectly clear from this section; first, that the previous Revenue survey Map must be taken as the basis for deciding whether there has been any gain by alluvion or dereliction, and, secondly, that the “changes” referred to in the section are changes by alluvion or dereliction, and not changes by possession, To take the second point first; it seems to me that this is a construction which must be adopted when once the scope and the object of the Act are understood. If it was the object of the Act to bring into existence a convenient procedure for determining if the land in question is liable to assessment, not by reason of the fact that possession in respect of it has changed, but by reason of the fact that it is land gained from the sea on from rivers by alluvion or dereliction, it mast follow that the changes which have to be ascertained and shown on the new map are changes, not by possession, but by the action of the river or the sea in either throwing up and annexing land to permanently settled estates or in carrying away by encroachments portion of land from such estates. In other words, where the proprietor of estate A. dispossesses the proprietor of estates B. of 100 bighas of land, and there is consequently a change brought about by such act of dispossession, that is not a change which the survey under Act IX of 1847 will take note of, the reason being, of course that such land, not being land gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction, is not liable to assessment under that Act. But where, by the action of the river or the sea, 100 bighas of land are thrown up and annexed to estate A, and such lands may properly be called lands gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction, and a change takes place which may be noticed by comparison with the previous Revenue Survey Map, that is a change which the survey under Act IX of 1817 will take note of in the map to be prepared under the Act. That this is so will be made clear by reference to the antecedent legislation. I will refer to one of them, Regulation II of 1825. The preamble of that Regulation speaks of the changes which take place in the channels of the principal rivers, in consequence whereof churs or small islands are thrown up by alluvion and large portions of land are carried away by an encroachment of the river. In my view, having regard to the object and the scope of Act IX of 1847, the word “changes” must mean changes brought about by the action of the river or the sea, and not changes by the act of one proprietor in annexing to his estate the property belonging to another proprietor.
17. Also, it must be remembered that the survey under Act IX of 1847 must take the previous Revenue Survey as its starting point. The previous Revenue Survey must be accepted as correct and the changes brought about by the action of the river shown in relation to the previous Revenue Survey. It was not the object of the survey under Act IX of 1817 to supply the omissions or correct the mistakes of the Revenue Survey. There was no power in the survey under Act IX of 1847 to pronounce the previous Revenue Survey to be inaccurate or wrong. It is necessary to refer to this matter because Mr. Mallick at one stage of his argument suggested that the Government did not follow the advice of the Deputy Surveyor General to the effect that an entirely new survey should be made of Pergunnah Pharkiya, because they contemplated a survey under Act IX of 1847.
18. It must follow from what I have said that a map prepared under Act IX of 1847, unlike a Revenue Survey Map or a map prepared under the Bengal Survey Act, can never be said to be a map according to possession of the parties. Either that map must show the changes that may have taken place since the date of the last previous survey, that is to say, changes by alluvion or diluvion, so that the revenue authorities may either allow a deduction from the jama under Section 5 or assess additional revenue under Section 6, or it ought to correspond with the last previous Survey Map. If I have understood the scope of the Act, there is no power to show the changes by encroachment by one proprietor on the land belonging to a neighbouring proprietor.
19. It is necessary, therefore, to consider whether the “gain” to Tikarampore shown by the Gangetic Survey Map can be said to be a gain from the sea or from the rivers by alluvion or dereliction. If it can, then the map is established and it must operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff. If it cannot, then the map must go, though the defendants may still establish that they have acquired a title to the disputed land by long possession from 1865 to 1900.
20. In my opinion, there cannot be any possible doubt that the disputed land does not represent land gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction. According to the Commissioner, the bulk of the disputed land falls within the plaintiffs mauzah by the Revenue Survey Map, although it falls within the defendants’ mauzah by the Gangetic Survey Map. In other words, there were no changes that were or could be ascertained sine the date of the last previous survey. The last previous survey of Tikarampore or Foolwaria, as it was then called, showed that the Ganges was then flowing to the south of the mauzah. That map must have been taken as the starting point for the Gangetic Survey Map of 1865, The last mentioned map also shows that the Ganges was flowing to the south of the river. It is the case of both the parties that there was no change in the position of the river Ganges between 1865 and 1900. It must follow, therefore, that the disputed land does not in fact, and could not, in the opinion of the Survey authorities, represent land gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction. The result is that, in so far as it differs from the Revenue Survey Map, it cannot be accepted as reliable or accurate.
21. The rest of the evidence on behalf of the defendants consists of oral evidence, the measurement khasra of Tikarampore prepared in 1868, and of the kistwar map of Tikarampore. All these establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the land north of Boor Gandak, and that the tract of land south of Boor Gandak was treated as appertaining to Tikarampore. This evidence does not, in my view, solve the problem, since the question remains, where was Boor Gandak in 1866?. The only answer is that the Gangetic Survey Map of 1865 shows where Boor Gandak was in 1865 and that the Commissioner has relaid Boor Gandak in his map which has been made part of the decree by the learned Subordinate Judge. But, if 1 am right in holding that the Gangetic Survey Map cannot be accepted as reliable, the Commissioner’s map can contribute nothing to the solution of the question. My view is strengthened by the fast that the Cadastral Survey which was conducted with considerable publicity and due notice to all the parties concerned is completely in favour of the plaintiff.
22. The conclusion at which I have arrived is that the plaintiff has proved her title to such portion of the disputed land as has been found by the Commissioner to fall within her mauzah by the Revenue Survey Map and the Cadastral Survey Map, that is to say, 401 bighas, 15 cottas out of 436 bighas. My conclusion is based on the following reasons:first, that the Cadastral Survey Map must be assumed to be correct until the contrary is shown; secondly, that the Cadastral Survey operation having shown that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land in 1903, it cannot be assumed that a different state of things existed at any period prior to 1903; thirdly, that the presumption is all the stronger in favour of the plaintiff when we take note of the fact that she was undoubtedly in possession of the disputed land in 1838 as established by the Revenue Survey Map of that year; fourthly, the object of the Gangetic Survey operation being to ascertain lands gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction, that map cannot operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff when, admittedly, the disputed land was not land gained from the sea or river by alluvion or dereliction; fifthly, the object of the Gangetic Survey Map not being to show boundaries of villages by possession, that map cannot be relied on on a question of possession, especially when it is in conflict both with the Revenue Survey Map and the Cadastral Survey Map which agree with each other, and, lastly, the oral evidence in the case, the measurement khasra of Tikarampore and the kistwar map of Tikarampore depending, as they do, on the Gangetic Survey Map, are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of the correctness of the Cadastral Survey.
23. I would allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance, and give the plaintiff a decree for 401 bighas, 15 cottas out of the land claimed in this action with costs throughout.
24. In the view which I have taken of this case, I have not thought it necessary to deal with the Commissioner’s map and report. I ought to mention, however, that there are strong grounds for rejecting his report in so far as he has proceeded on the maps supplied by the defendants. So far as his work, based on the Revenue Survey Map and the Cadastral Survey Map, is concerned, the result is in favour of the plaintiff and has not been challenged before us by the defendants. We have accordingly relied on it for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in respect of 401 bighas 15 cottas out of the land claimed in this action.
Adami, J.
25. I agree.